Answers
It is not specified which activity to focus on, so I will help with Question #3.
Event 1: I agree with the answer due to the fact that the CEO will naturally select Directors that he/she is comfortable with, i.e. he/she goes along with. In this way, the decisions taken by the management body will be backed up by more members of the Board. Thus, the management power wil definitely increase (1).
Event #2: In my opinion, thr actions undertaken by the investor will increase the Stockholder Power (2) because more Directors in the Board will watch after the interests of this investor.
Event #3: I think there is no dominating power increase as a result of the law. Each hostile takeover might have very specific impact on one or both sides depending on the underlying reasons that motivated the hostile, however, placed in general terms, it is difficult to measure which power will increase more.
So, I will opt for No effect (3).
Event #4: Unless both companies have some ownership link, which does not seem to be the case based on the information, I agree that this should imply no effect (3)
Event #5: Totally agree with the answer selected. Stockholder power will increase (2) because the fund is active and there is more at stake due to the characteristics of the fund even though 5% is not that much of an ownership (still it might represent certain concentration in case that all the remaining ownership is widely disperse).
Event #6: From my point of view, the Stockholder power will increase (2). This would be an indirect way of having a better control because more external eyes will watch on the company´s performance. The scrutiny will oblige the managers to think twice their decisions before any actions have been undertaken.
.